confused policy

Submitted by myth (Germany), Jun 18, 2011 at 05:02

Granting Qaddafi his share of territory would give Qaddafi more legitimacy than what he has got now. On other hand, the split offers both parties some honourable way out of open hostilities. In such an event NATO could terminate actions. That would serve our interests, maybe not Libya's, but it's our alliance, not theirs.

I agree that NATO's policy has been confused and creates more confusion every day. Even if Qaddafi himself was commander of NATO for a week I would expect more of a strategic policy from NATO than what we see now. Today NATO makes the impression to seek TV airtime in order to prove their reason of existence to the western public. NATO projects an image of some Robin-Hood-military, rushing to the rescue of the badly equipped revolutionaries. Unfortunately the story will not end after 90minutes with a happily-ever-after outcome, certainly not for Libya.

The simple truth is: Things take time.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".